eclectic approach CLT在中国.docx

eclectic approach CLT在中国.docx

《eclectic approach CLT在中国.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《eclectic approach CLT在中国.docx（22页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

eclecticapproachCLT在中国

AnewparadigmofteachingEnglishinChina:

AnEclecticModel

Author

LixinXiao

BioData:

Dr.LixinXIAOisaprofessorofEnglishlanguageeducationandInterculturalCommunicationatSchoolofForeignLanguages,TianjinPolytechnicUniversity,P.R.China.HeholdsaPhDinL2&EFLEducationfromtheSchoolofAppliedLanguageandInterculturalStudies,DublinCityUniversity,Ireland.HehasbeenteachingEnglishasaforeignlanguageatuniversitylevelinChinaforover20years,andhasgotresearchandteachingexperienceinCanadaandIreland.Hismainresearchinterestsincludeteachingmethodology,CLTapplicationinChina,criticalthinkingdevelopmentinEFLeducation,andESP.DrXiaohaspublishedwidelyinternationally.

Abstract

ThispaperpresentsaneclecticmodelofteachingEnglishmajorstheComprehensiveEnglishcourseattheuniversitylevel.ThenewapproachtoELTdescribedcombinesstrengthsfromthetraditionalteaching,communicativelanguageteaching（CLT）andthecontextapproach（CA）（Bax,2003）inordertosuitthecurrentEnglishasaforeignlanguage（EFL）contextinChinaattheuniversitylevel.ItconsistsofthreeinterrelatedstagesinteachingEnglishmajorstheComprehensiveEnglishcourse:

pre-reading,while-readingandpost-reading,andeachstagefocusesondifferentandspecificdimensions.Thenewapproachtreatslanguageteachingandlearningasanorganicprocessandincludesreadingatthesyntacticallevel（bottom-upstage）andreadingatthetextualanddiscourselevel（top-downstage）.Thetop-downstageismoresignificantinlanguageteachingbecauseitisthisstagethatenablestheprogressionofasynthesizedapproachtotakeplace.Theproposedeclecticmodelisdifferentfromtraditionalteacher-centredpracticesinwhichteacherstendtotreatnewwords,phrasesandsentencestructurepatternsasdiscretelanguagepointsandelaborateuponthemover-meticulouslywhilethegistofthetextisusuallyoverlooked.Furthermore,theproposedapproachisaimedathelpingteacherstoovercometheweaknessofteacher-centeredness.Inthiseclecticapproach,theprevalentChinesemethodsofteachingcomprehensivecoursesarethestartingpointandCLTandCAareemployedtocomplementthem.Thepurposeforsuchasynthesisistocultivatelearners’communicativecompetenceasrequiredbytherevisedcurriculumforEnglishmajorsattheuniversitylevel.

Keywords:

-newapproachtoELT,proposedeclecticmodel,prevalentChinesemethods

Introduction

Sincethelate1980stherehasbeenatop-downmovementtoreformEnglishlanguageteaching（ELT）inChina.AnimportantcomponentofEnglishlanguageteachingreformhasbeenanefforttoimportcommunicativelanguageteaching（CLT）intheChinesecontext（Hu,2002）.However,attemptstointroduceCLTintoELTinChinahaveprovokedagreatdealofcommentanddebate.WhereassomeresearchershaveemphasizedthevalueofadoptingCLTinChina（Li,1984;Maley,1984;Xiao,2005）,othershavenotedtheimportanceofChinesetraditionalwaysofteachingandlearning（Harvey,1985;Sampson,1984;Sanoetal.,1984）.StillmanyresearchershavefocusedontheneedtoadaptCLTtothedemandsandconditionsforELTinChina（Anderson,1993;Rao,1996,2002;Xiao,2005,2006a）.WithinthisdebateonEnglishteachingmethodology,thestudyofChinesestudents’perceptionsandattitudestoCLTdeservesparticularattention.SomeearlierstudiesshowthatChinesestudentsareinclinedtopreferapleasantmixtureofclassroom-basedlearningactivitiesthatemphasizebothcommunicativecomponentsofCLTandformalgrammaticalcorrectnessofthetraditionalapproach（Rao,2002;Xiao,2005,2006）.Therefore,aneclecticapproachwhichcancombinethestrengthsofdifferentapproachesaswellasmeetChineseEFLlearners’needsisnecessary.

Communicativelanguageteachingvs.thetraditionalapproach

Communicativelanguageteaching（CLT）hasbeenaninfluentialapproachforatleasttwodecades.Theveryterm‘communicative’carriesanobviousringoftruth:

we‘learntocommunicatebycommunicating’（Larsen-Freeman,1986,p.131）.CLTadvocateslearningalanguagethroughuse.Incontrastwiththetraditionalapproach,whichstressesteacherclassroomdominanceandaverydetailedstudyofgrammar,extensiveuseofparaphraseandthetranslationandmemorizationofstructuralpatternsandvocabulary,CLTemphasizesthecompetenceofusinglanguageforcommunication.Learningisregardedasaprocessofnaturalgrowthratherthanacquiringisolateditemsoflanguage.Aslearnershavetheirownactivemechanismsformakingsenseoflanguageinputandconstructingtheirownsystemswhilereceivinglinguisticinput,whatteachersneedtodoistohelpthemoperatethesenaturalmechanismsbyprovidingthemwith“triggers”.Inlessons,teacherscanfacilitateacquisitionbyassistingstudentstopracticesothattheycanlearntouselanguageactivelyforrealcommunicativeneeds.CLThassomecommonfeaturesofpracticethatderivefromitsbasicprinciples.First,classroomsarelearner-oriented.Second,opportunitiesareprovidedthroughdevelopingawiderepertoireofactivities.Third,theteacher’srolesaremultiple.Insteadofimpartingknowledgeandskillstolearners,s/hemayactasanimator,co-communicatororcounselorintheclassroom.Fourth,authenticmaterialsareusedinteaching.（Nunan,1991,1993;Mey,1998）

Relatedresearchtodate

ChinahasthelargestnationalpopulationofEnglishlanguagelearnersintheworld,andChinaisdeeplyinvolvedinCLTsinceitwasfirstintroducedintothecountryintheearly1980s.However,duetomultipleconstraintsincludingthelinguisticcompetenceofChineseEFLteachers,ChinahashadtoworkhardtoadaptCLTtothelocalconditions.InChina,mostteachersclaimtouseacommunicativeapproachinsomewayorother,anditishardlysurprisingthatnoonewishestobecalledanon-communicativeteacher.However,asCLTwasborneanddevelopedinWesterncountries,itisnotuniversallyapplicableinAsiancontextswithoutproperadaptation（Ellis,1996;Hu,2005）.TheproblemliesinthatmodifiedvarietiesofCLTmightsuitsomepresentconditionsforthetimebeing,buttheyarefarfromscientific,since,aspracticedintheclassroom,theyarenotusuallyselectedonthebasisofclassroom-basedoracademicresearch（Leng,1997）.Inmanycases,whetherCLTisseentobedifficult,effective,orisrejectedasinappropriate,（i.e.reportsonitsimplementation）havebeenbasedmainlyonteachers’ownperceptionsofCLT（Li,1998）.Onlyafewstudieshaveinvestigatedlearners’views,andfewerstudiesstill,havelookedatlearnerviewsofcommunicativepracticesintheclassroom.

Someresearchersargueforacombinationofthestrengthsfromdifferentapproaches（cf.Liu,2004）.LiuholdsthatEnglishasaforeignlanguage（EFL）teacherschooseateachingmethodnotbecauseofitsprofessionalortheoreticalworth,butratherbecauseitallowsthemtocopeefficientlywiththerealitiesoftheenvironment.Inhisopinion,ifL2/EFLstudentsareactivelyusingthetargetlanguageandteachingmaterialsandactivitiesmeettheneedsofthestudents,whateverteachingmethodisuseddoesnotmattermuch.

ManyresearcherscontendthatboththeCLTandtraditionalapproachhavetheirownadvantagesanddisadvantages.Hence,acombinationofthestrengthsfromdifferentapproachesisthebest（Hu,2002;Rao,2002;Xiao,2005）.Horwitz（1988）suggests,classroomrealitiesthatcontradictlearnerexpectationsaboutlearningmaydisappointthemandthusinterferewiththeattainmentofdesiredlearningoutcomes.Harvey（1985）,basedonhisexperienceofteachingEnglishinChina,findstheconstructivesideofthetraditionalapproachusefulinclass.Heassertsthat:

Whatmightbecalled“traditional”methodsandskills[inChina]arenotfundamentallyornecessarilyunworkablealongsidemodernEFLteachingmethods.Theideathatthetwoaremutuallyexclusiveisabsurd.EFLinChinaneedsWesternexperienceandexpertise,notWesterndogma.AbalancedapproachandtheuseofexistingpotentialbothhaveafundamentalparttoplayinthedevelopmentoflanguageteachinginChina（Harvey,1985,p.186）.

Rao（2002）studiedtheviewsof30Chineseuniversitystudentsontheappropriatenessandeffectivenessofcommunicativeandnon-communicativeactivitiesintheirEFLcoursesinChina.Hediscoveredthatthestudents’perceiveddifficultiescausedbyCLThadtheirsourceinthedifferencesbetweentheunderlyingeducationaltheoriesofChinaandthoseofWesterncountries.HearguesthatupdatingEnglishteachingmethodsinChinaneedstocombinethe“new”withthe“old”toalignthecommunicativeapproachwithtraditionalteachingstructures.Buthissuggestionsarefarfrompedagogicallyconcrete.

Xiao（2005）conductedalargescaleempiricalstudyofChineseEnglishmajorsandtheirteachersattheuniversitylevel.Hereportedthatalthoughboththestudentsandteachersconcernedwereinclinedtoseeclassroomactivitiesemphasizingtherealuseofthetargetlanguageasmoreeffectivethanthoseemphasizingformalgrammaticalcompetence,they,however,vieweditinappropriatetototallyabandonthetraditionalapproachinfavourofCLTasthenotionsunderpinningCLTarenotverycompatiblewiththeChineseELTcontext.

Inreality,whatwecaninferfromrelevantstudiesliesinthattherealissueisnottoabandonthetraditionalapproach,buttoimproveandmodernizeit.Inotherwords,toreconcileitwithCLTinsuchawaythatbothapproachescomplementeachother.SuchassertionsalsosupportsomeearlierstudiesbysomeotherChineseresearchers（Wen,1996;Su&Zhuang,1996）.Thesestudiesreflectthe